AUSTIN — This summer's landmark Supreme Court ruling on abortion could put a wrench in Texas' plans to further restrict the practice in the spring, experts say.

Whether legislators will err on the side of caution is a different question.

"States like Texas are going to try to continue to push the envelope," said Matthew Wilson, a political science professor at Southern Methodist University. "I don't think legislatures are going to be dissuaded from passing abortion decisions based on existing decisions."

In Whole Woman's Health vs. Hellerstedt, the nation's highest court ruled that two provisions of Texas' law were unconstitutional — one that would have required abortion clinics to have admitting privileges into hospitals, and another that would have made clinics adhere to standards of ambulatory surgical centers.

The court ruled that the restrictions would place an undue burden on women and that the state didn't provide enough evidence that the law would benefit women's health.

Abigail Aiken, a political science professor at the University of Texas at Austin, said if Texas lawmakers wanted to venture back into similar laws, they'd be walking into a "legal minefield."

"It's pretty clear in the Whole Woman's Health decision that laws that are masquerading as protecting women's health are not going to fly anymore," Aiken said. "I think that's kind of closed the door on that for now."

Arguments that women's health would benefit from abortion restrictions are going to be more susceptible to legal challenges in the future, said Amanda Allen, state legislative counsel for the Center for Reproductive Rights, the group that sued the state in the Supreme Court case.

"The relationship between the restrictions that Texas wanted to enforce and the actual impact on improving women's health was zero," Allen said. "The court is really going to closely scrutinize those types of arguments moving forward."

But the Supreme Court didn' t look at one provision of Texas' 2013 law — one that prohibits abortion in Texas after 20 weeks of pregnancy. John Seago, legislative director for Texas Right to Life, said abortion bills that use the basis of "fetal life" as an argument are more likely to be implemented.

"There is still a legitimate state interest in protecting fetal life," Seago said. "Our opponents don't want to talk about that."

But so far, lawmakers haven't filed many bills that argue in support of protecting fetal life.

One of the bills filed for the spring would require aborted or miscarried fetal tissue to be buried or cremated. The Center for Reproductive Rights has sued the state on the measure, and a judge will hear the case in early January.

Other bills are smaller in scope. One refers to banning a type of late-term abortion that is already illegal under federal law. Another would ban abortion insurance coverage, and a third would implement stronger requirements for electronic reporting of abortions by clinics.

Seago said Texas Right to Life is going to focus more on bills that save lives, such as a ban on what abortion opponents call "dismemberment abortions." The bill would ban a method of performing abortions in the second trimester called dilation and extraction.

Abortion rights groups say that the procedure is safe and that the language against it is misleading. The Center for Reproductive Rights has also filed lawsuits in several states, including Kansas and Louisiana, with bans on dilation and extraction abortions.

Rep. Stephanie Klick, R-Fort Worth, will carry the bill in the state House. Seago said the bill would protect fetal life, but Klick emphasized that the procedure is "barbaric" and also dangerous to the woman getting an abortion.

"We're trying to protect women, and we need to make things where it's safer for women to have this procedure," she said.

When asked about possible legal challenges to Texas abortion bills because of the Supreme Court ruling, Klick said, "I frankly disagree with the court's assessment on that."

Until the next president appoints a new member of the Supreme Court, Wilson said, any abortion challenges would probably be struck down again.

"The risk to pro-life legislators is entirely on the judicial side, not on the political side," he said. "They're on safe ground [in public opinion]."

But if President-elect Donald Trump has the opportunity to appoint more than one justice to the Supreme Court, the bench could tilt toward the conservative side.

"It's such an open book right now, I think, because we just don't know what's coming in the pipeline," Aiken said. "We're kind of staring into the barrel of the gun when it comes to the federal situation right now."